“Serious” Democrats Propose Oppressive Carbon Tax
It appears the Democrats in Congress were all ears during President Obama’s inaugural address, wherein he stated his commitment to tackling “climate change” issues in his second term. Anything different, he opined, would be a betrayal to our children and future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Obama! Failing to alter the Earth’s temperature by hundredths of a degree by midcentury is the worst thing we could do to future generations. Surely those future generations won’t notice the debt, damaged economy, lack of jobs, lack of religious liberty, and destroyed healthcare system because the globe will be too warm.
The new carbon tax proposals brewing among Democrats in both chambers (sub. req’d) serve two purposes: 1) to fulfill Obama’s call for action; and, 2) serve as new “revenue” for the upcoming budget debates.
If that isn’t enough good news for one day, they’re also discussing how funds confiscated from American businesses should be spent. Among their plans are funds for residential environmental rebates, financing for energy research, job training and aid for energy-intensive and trade-exposed businesses.
In his inaugural address, the President also boldly and erroneously stated the “overwhelming judgment of science” to support his notion that “America cannot resist [the] transition” to sustainable energy.
Despite what the President, House Democrats, and global warming activists may have you believe, there is not overwhelming scientific consensus about “global warming” or “climate change.” Sadly though, the left perpetually hypes dubiously grounded scientific studies as proverbial gospel truth.
For instance, one study published in Science claims that the Earth is experiencing unprecedented temperatures. But this study was contradicted by a previous study:
The new study is… counter to a preponderance of existing peer-reviewed studies showing the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warming were both as warm or warmer than today without benefit of modern emissions or SUVs.
In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”
The bottom line is that the scientific community has not reached a general consensus about “global warming.”
Why should we allow radical environmentalist lobbyist to dictate the energy future for our whole nation? The left is using “climate change” as a distraction from issues of real importance like overspending and lack of access to American energy resources. They are trying to stay on offense, so we are forced to play defense.
Their strategy is indeed offensive. A carbon tax would disproportionately harm the poor. Heritage explains:
The poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their earnings on energy, particularly utilities and transportation… A carbon tax would disproportionately hit these families, whose behavior is difficult to change in the short run.
While economists like to imagine that the carbon tax would be offset by reductions in taxes on capital or some other particularly economically damaging tax, the fact is that, politically, it is far more likely that funding from the carbon tax would be used to reduce the tax’s impact on the poor.
Conservatives need to get off the ropes and put liberal environmentalists on the defensive, not the other way around. We believe in freedom and the free market. We believe in policies that help people rather than harming them. We want to empower the private sector rather than the government. And we have the facts in our favor.